Talk:Hyper-evolution
Removed I reverted the following information: :Of course, this is absurd, since it presumes the false premise that evolution has some sort of pre-set direction that can be forced to occur at a rapid rate. There is no pre-set direction nor outcome to evolutionary processes. Opionated comments do not belong in articles. --From Andoria with Love 23:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :Doesn't look like opinion to me, just a statement of fact- evolution is the propagation of factors that give an advantage to alifeform in a specific environment, not a predetermined path. 19:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC) :EDIT:Logged in nowMartinMcCann 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) "This is absurd" is the opinionated area I'm most concerned about. Remove that, and reword it as necessary, and I don't see why it can't be included in the article - assuming that it's true, of course. I'm not a science major. :-P --From Andoria with Love 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) :: In addition, I removed: ::* "The writers of "Threshold" later acknowledged that they took more liberties with this concept than fans were prepared to accept. " :: For being uncited. --Alan 03:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC) :::Apparently all these "Threshold not considered canon/accepted by staff, etc." references come from the season 2 dvd easter egg mentioned in the episode page. Someone who owns that release should check out what they exacly said in the interview, what were the actual aspects of the episode they hated, and such, as there have been a number of these uncited and unclear notes around MA in various pages relating to the transwarp and the evolution stuff from Threshold. :::Also I would like to offer for the record that it is not absurd in the context of Star Trek that human evolution happens in this way. We know from that humans actually evolved to look like humans because our DNA contains a preprogrammed code to make us this way. And it has not been stated the programming has completed itself. The same is true regarding when the computer is asked what a hadrosaur would look like now if it had continued to evolve, and the computer assumes it turns into a humanoid. Again in the context of Star Trek it is not absurd because hadrosaur would have had the same DNA programming as humans do. --Pseudohuman 07:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ::::I would say that hyperevolution IS in fact absurd. This becomes obvious insofar as it is happening with individual persons whereas any type of evolution only takes places within generations. And there is a great difference to . The seed that was distributed by the aliens evolved into a large variety of species everywhere, and all the planets were very similar to each other. So this can be viewed more as an example for parallel evolution rather than preprogramming. With respect to , linear evolution is a concept and not a fact. Looking back, there are always inbetween-forms when tracing back the ancestors of a given present species. This however cannot be applied the other way round.-- 20:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC) :::::One more time: Fictional evolution is Star Trek is not the same (barely similar, frankly) as the theory of evolution in real life. And, since real life doesn't actually have "hyperevolution", then hyperevolution in Star Trek can be anydangthing they want. Kind of like FTL travel, psionics, omnipotence, it's a long long list. All of those things are "absurd". Why single out hyperevolution for such acknowledgement? --TribbleFurSuit 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::I think we all know that hyperevolution is only fiction. But also fiction - especially so called science fiction - should at least try to be a bit logical. And who knows, maybe one day there may be some term like "hyperevolution" in science (for a very quick evolution proces yet to be discovered). And then there would be the danger to confuse fact and fiction. For instance "atmospheric dissipation" really exists. But it is something very different from what Star Trek TNG wants to make us believe. The kids watching that program are tempted to confuse fact and fiction. I wonder why people here become that aggressive.-- 18:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I humbly submit that Paris and Janeway became seemingly devolved amphibian-like lifeforms due to what we currently understand as the theory of evolution without any further bells and whistles (aside from the increased speed of the process). Due to the extremely accelerated nature of the evolutionary changes in Paris and Janeway, internal and external factors that would have guided the development of traits played little to no part in the process, causing them to adopt a form that did little more than exist; essentially, their bodies could identify no environmental factors necessitating changes to compensate (however, this may explain why Paris was able to break free; while struggling to escape, he may have temporarily gained elevated strength, resilience to phaser fire, etc. as the situation required). Additionally, any preprogrammed evolution from the ancient humanoids may have reached their conclusion once humans attained intelligent humanoid forms. This is purely and completely speculation, but it might settle some irritation people may feel from the perceived suggestion that we're destined to become horny toads. At evolution's current rate, it is likely that we'll remain intelligent humanoids barring any massive and major nonlethal changes to our environment that we're unable to compensate for; otherwise, we can simply bend nature to our needs instead of adapting to its demands. -- 05:14, January 22, 2011 (UTC) :That's so incredibly NOT how evolution works. Without going into how your proposal just plain doesn't follow natural selection, increasing the "rate" of evolution will not cause a single life form to do anything. I can't "evolve," generations of my progeny can show changes that natural selection my give advantages to and therefore "evolve." An increase in the rate of mutation or crossover or other similar effects generally cannot effect me, certainly not over my entire body. You would have to change the genetic code of every cell in my body, independently, and exactly the same way. This is why mutation can give me cancer, but not x-ray vision. On the other hand, a change in a single cell (a gamete) will be carried over to the entire lifeform of my offspring (though may still not be expressed in the phenotype). --OuroborosCobra talk 14:49, January 22, 2011 (UTC)